Crimmigration Resistance and the Case of Sanctuary City Defunding

Abstract

Transformations in the fields of immigration and criminal law have given rise to a cogent and vital body of literature examining the growing linkages between these two systems in recent years. In this article, we discern two broad strands of critique in the "crimmigration" literature. "Delineating" critiques seek to disrupt the conflation of immigration enforcement with crime control in the hopes of trying to reverse some of distorting, dignity-stripping effects of migrant criminalization. "Synthesizing" critiques, on the other hand, expand their gaze to probe some of the parallel logics, cultural values and environmental factors that may be driving practices in both systems.

With this typology in mind, we explore resistance to the Trump Administration's attempts to withdraw funds from so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions. We observe the limited extent to which delineation and synthesis critiques have been featured in litigation challenging the Administration's actions and sketch out a vision for more robust crimmigration resistance to sanctuary defunding. Additionally, we expand the framework by considering how delineation and synthesis critiques--and a spectrum of intermediate positions--might be understood as responses to a logical syllogism about crimmigration. Our case study leads us to ask whether jurisdictions confronted with the prospect of losing Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement grants may do better to reject those funding streams entirely. In concluding, we suggest that our framework might be productively applied to other contested issues at the intersection of immigration and criminal law.

Keywords: immigration, crimmigration, sanctuary, social movements